similar to: Samba and ProxyArp

Hello everybody. I could not find an answer to my problem in the archive. (But that may just be me :-) ) I have a problem with proxy arp and connection from loc (localnet) and from the firewall. Works fine from internet to dmz / proxy arp and vise versa. I have a feeling the solution is simple, but I''m no guru in Linux routing etc. The problem seems to be the routing setup. loc -

I have an access-IProm my isp that I configured my eth0 with. And I also have an IP-range assigned from my ISP that will be used on my servers connected to eth1. The IP-range is routed thru the access-IP. This is how my configfiles look like. Internal everything seems to work but not external. /etc/shorewall/proxyarp #ADDRESS INTERFACE EXTERNAL HAVEROUTE

Shorewall 4.5.1.1 I have 5 interfaces on a centos box, the first two are internal on two different subnets, the next two are two different ISP''s and the last one is a private network for testing and administration. The second internal subnet (eth1) is rejecting all the arp requests to it and I get the following in the log files ever second or two - May 16 05:28:54 services kernel:

Okay, so I''m trying to setup my multiple ISP setup that I described earlier. I have: # ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: em1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP>

Hi I am using Shorewall with a bridged Firewall using the "bridging utils" from Debian. eth0 is connected to the router and eth1 is connected to the local lan. eth0 and eth1 are both assigned zero addresses and br0 is assigned the Firewall server address of 192.168.0.1 I should point out that Shorewall is working fine in Bridge mode, but I have hit some problems while evaluating

someone recommended that i should give br0 the same hardware address as eno2. I did that, and restarted the vm, and it still does not work. Here is my current host interface config: ip a 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000 link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo valid_lft

Hi Alex, and thanks for your time. Probably not. The servers are only configured like they where when they where parallel to the fw. Just the default gateway, same as for the external interface on the fw. That''s what the documentation instructed to configure the servers using arp. But is it required with extra configuration on the server connected via proxy arp? Or is it some parameter

Hello All, I'm trying to figure out why xen-utils-common 3.2 doesn't suport bridging on multiple interfaces. I've been digging around /etc/xen/scripts/network-bridges. And modified it so that during boot, when executed the script writes into /tmp/netbr file, but I commented out code that actually creates bridges. I discovered that this script is called three times during boot, I

> Dear CentOS-Community, > > we are facing the following issue: > > A secondary ip address seems to be automatically added to a nic which > causes several issues in our setup. Hi, Can you show as the config of eno4? And can you diff the config of eno1 and eno4. Looks like there is a difference somewhere. Regards, Simon > > > This server is equipped with four nics

I should have what i want to achive. The server is intended as a host for VMs. Our network has multiple VLANs, and the VMs will be connected to different VLANS. The interface eno1 is for host traffic and eno2 is connected to the trunk port of the switch, making the different VLANS availabel to the VMs via the br0. I want to use a VLAN-aware br0, so that I specify in my VM config (on the host

Hello all I have weird problem i can't understand and don't know where to look. [root at chamber ~]# ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000 link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 ::1/128 scope host

Hi, I''m having problems with new Shorewall installation on Fedora Core 3 (had same problem with Core 2 and upgrade did not help even iptables was upgraded from 1.2.9 to 1.2.11). I''ve followed two nic example, but starting Shorewall drops all connections and don''t permit any outgoing requests, even with "all allowed" policy. Policy file is below. Current setup

This is my system info: Debian Release: 10.5 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.4.60-1-pve (SMP w/16 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh

Dear CentOS-Community, we are facing the following issue: A secondary ip address seems to be automatically added to a nic which causes several issues in our setup. This server is equipped with four nics which are currently in use: # nmcli con show NAME????? UUID????????????????????????????????? TYPE????? DEVICE eno2????? cb6fcb54-be52-4ab6-8324-88091a0ea1a0? ethernet? eno2 eno4?????

On 12/16/18 4:59 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to run a network firewall as a VM on a KVM host. There are > ~ 25 VLANs delivered to the KVM host on three dedicated links, no LACP > or other things. I have the VLANs 100-180 on the host's enp1s0, the VLANs > 200-280 on the host's enp2s0 and the VLANs 300-380 on the host's enp3s0. > > To save

Network Configuration issues I''ve been working on this for 2 days PLEASE HELP! I am having the following issues with network configuration and I cannot ping the external interface to begin troubleshooting the network configuration. I know that the ISP''s router is configured correctly since I have attached it to a small Linksys firewall and was able to ping the 66.240.207.226

Hi, this is propably bridge related and not really a xen problem, but it might help someone: Some of our domUs are not able to arp. Arp -n show (incomplete), and doing a tcpdump shows, that on the dom0''s eth0 the arp request goes out, the response comes in, but on the vifX.0 interface the arp response is gone. dom0# tcpdump -ni eth0 arp who-has 10.32.2.51 tell 10.32.7.70 arp reply

Hi Parke, Thanks, no I had not run those commands, but after doing so, my VPN address is not visible. See below: nsasia at db2:/etc/tinc$ sudo systemctl enable tinc at VPN1 Created symlink /etc/systemd/system/tinc.service.wants/tinc at VPN1.service → /lib/ systemd/system/tinc at .service. nsasia at db2:/etc/tinc$ systemctl start tinc at VPN1 ==== AUTHENTICATING FOR

Hi all, I have done some tests for the new attributes "check" and "type", could you please help to have a check? And I have some questions about the patch, please help to have a look, Thank you! The questions: 1. in step 4 below, the error message should be updated: Actual results: XML error: invalid mac address **check** value: 'next'. Valid values are

Hi folks, I read quite some posts about "Destination host unreachable" problems before, but none could help me to solve my issue. So here we go: This is what I am using: SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 SP1 - Current with all updates Network configuration of my dom0: foobar:~ # ip a 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd